AuSable Capital Partners, LLC v. Sati Exports India Private Limited, 8:21-cv-00129

AuSable Capital Partners sued multiple defendants on March 25, 2021; service issues with overseas defendant Sati delayed proceedings.
The court entered and amended a final progression order; deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings was May 31, 2023.
Samsara Surfaces timely moved for leave to file an amended answer and attached the proposed pleading.
Plaintiff did not oppose most changes but objected to: (1) revision of the original answer to Complaint ¶65 (argued to be a judicial admission), and (2) addition of an affirmative defense invoking the economic loss doctrine (¶145).
Court analyzed Rule 15(a) factors (timeliness, prejudice, futility) and Rule 8(c) for affirmative defenses, and concluded amendments were not frivolous and would not prejudice the parties.
Court granted Samsara leave to file the amended answer (ordered filed by July 28, 2023), allowing the revised ¶65 and inclusion of the economic-loss affirmative defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Withdrawal/revision of Answer ¶65 (alleged judicial admission)	¶65 response was a judicial admission and cannot be "walked back."	Amendment timely under progression order; superseded pleadings lose binding effect and prior admissions may become evidentiary only.	Allowed. No significant prejudice; superseded admissions generally lose conclusive effect.
Addition of economic-loss affirmative defense (¶145)	Amendment is futile; defense should not be permitted now.	Failure to plead an affirmative defense can be cured; defense is not frivolous and is related to the case.	Allowed. Not clearly frivolous; permissibly pled though court noted the doctrine might be raised later even if omitted.

Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (standards for denying leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)
Becker v. Univ. of Neb. at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1999) (district court discretion in granting leave to amend)
White v. ARCO/Polymers, Inc., 720 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir. 1983) (treatment of admissions in pleadings and effect of superseded pleadings)
In re C.F. Foods, L.P., 265 B.R. 71 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001) (judicial admissions are generally binding absent supersession)
Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 1997) (courts may allow amendment to include omitted Rule 8(c) defenses)
Geier v. Missouri Ethics Com'n, 715 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2013) (futility basis for denying amendment when amendment cannot survive dismissal)
Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 686 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2012) (denial for futility means the amendment would fail a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge)
Sokolski v. Trans Union Corp., 178 F.R.D. 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (burden on opposing party to show amendment would be futile)